Statement by Ambassador Warlick - "moment of truth" for Karabakh settlement

(Interview with political scientist Eldar Namazov by the agency Turan 09/05/14)

Question: Eldar Bey , you recently met with the OSCE Minsk Group. How do you assess the report of Ambassador J. Warlick dedicated to Karabakh settlement ?

A: Recently, we have had several meetings with the OSCE Minsk Group Ambassadors J. Warlick (USA) and Jacques Faure (France) . I must say that these diplomats attached great importance to the participation of civil society in the search for solutions to the conflict.

 This was discussed in the last statement by Mr. J. Warlick at the Carnegie Endowment. In fact, this was the official presentation of the U.S. position in the Karabakh conflict and that in itself makes this event important. Not coincidentally, it caused such a great response and resonance in the region.

Q: It seems the articulated principles are not new, they have already been reported in a number of documents by co-chairs...

A: Yes, it is. Mr. Warlick also noted this and called those same documents, including a statement of the Chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group. But despite this, the interest in this presentation is very large and this is due to several factors.

 First, against the background of events in Ukraine and the deterioration of US- Russian relations in the media space there are many speculations about the Karabakh problem, including obviously provocative ones.

In this situation the position voiced by the U.S. is a certainly stabilizing element and is a definite message to not only the parties to the conflict, but also the different political circles, prone to geopolitical and regional adventures. There is no coincidence that the United States found it necessary not to make a joint statement with other co-chairs and express its own attitude to this issue.

Second, the present document reflects the principles and specific philosophy approach to the settlement and the definition of " price of peace" between the parties and I must say that for the first time it looks so balanced, and conceptually convincing, in my opinion.

Finally, we must bear in mind that for 20 years of the negotiation process were discussed almost all the theoretically possible settlement plans, all the details. To bring something completely new is virtually impossible - there are rigidly delineated military, political and geographical realities of the framework in the context of discussing all the issues. This lends much choice and opportunities to intermediaries to seek new approaches. I would say that a peaceful settlement formula is already known, and it is clearly reflected in the U.S. document. Moreover, it is the fruit of several "generations" of mediators from the United States, Russia and France, and not an American exclusive.

Therefore, the "moment of truth" in the negotiation process within the OSCE Minsk Group is clear enough: if there is a peaceful settlement, it will be exactly in line with the approach outlined in the presentation at the Carnegie Endowment. There is no alternative peace plan and an alternative to this approach is either further "freeze the situation", or war. In fact, you can even combine these two alternatives into one - "freezing before the war" because attempts to maintain the current status quo for a long period already look very unrealistic. -0 -